Donald Trump, corruption fighter?

https://www.usatoday.com/story/opinion/2019/11/24/donald-trump-corruption-ukraine-family-business-column/4258746002/

Unless you are a real dupe, the claim that Trump gives even a rat’s ass about fighting corruption is simply laughable. Jason Sattler does an excellent job of showing why. In a nutshell – he is corruption personified and always has been.

14 thoughts on “Donald Trump, corruption fighter?

  1. Trump has stated, and continues to state, that he believes the Ukraine is responsible for the DNC hack. So, who does he ask to “investigate” Joe Biden and how did he expect them to do it?

    “Yes your honor, the video clearly shows me handing him the money and saying, ‘Take care of my wife,” but since it turns out that he was an undercover cop and not a Mafia hitman like I believed, then she was never in any danger. Where’s the crime in that?”

    Liked by 4 people

  2. The article does nothing but lay out the simple facts of the matter and when taken together make a case so compelling that only a brain washed cultist (or politician without a conscience) would not see the obvious and take action…

    Liked by 2 people

  3. If you find the USA Today article compelling, you may be a fool. Here’s why.

    Some have defended Trump’s quid pro quo with Ukraine on the grounds that we don’t know his motives. There are those who claim Trump’s mind was filled with hopes of personal, political gain, but Trump’s defenders point out that concern over Ukrainian corruption is just as likely.

    After all, there is no quotation by Trump, no secret conversation subsequently revealed, in which Trump admits, “I want the Bidens investigated so I won’t have to run against Sleepy Joe in 2020.” The man’s actual motives are a mystery, a presumption, a phantom.

    USA Today seeks to fill the void by claiming, “Of course we know Trump’s motives. The man is corrupt. He has always been corrupt. Therefore his motives with Ukraine were corrupt.”

    This is the part that makes you a fool if you believe it: Patterns don’t prove anything. If you think they do, you belong in some other country where people accused of bad behavior have to prove they didn’t do it. Your belong in a place where witches are are bound and thrown into rivers to float or drown. You belong with the sheep led to pasture by a dog.

    In other words, the USA Today article is a good example of what passes for contemporary journalism: long on narrative, but utterly irrelevant to anything real. Should any members of Congress wish to make an impeachment inquiry out of the observations USA Today catalogs, let them do it. They could have done so already in many cases, but they didn’t. Hence, irrelevant.

    Like

    1. @Roberts

      Your lack of self-awareness is striking. As a unrepentant Trump supporter incapable of exhibiting even an ounce of common sense, let alone anything remotely close to educated insight you should refrain from referring to ANYBODY as a fool.

      Liked by 3 people

          1. How is that relevant? It was a joke.

            However, it is just as relevant as your implied defense of Trump’s illegally trying to sabotage Biden. That, too, is a joke. If Biden is his preferred opponent, all the more motive to extort dirt on him from Ukraine.

            Liked by 3 people

  4. “ After all, there is no quotation by Trump, no secret conversation subsequently revealed, in which Trump admits, “I want the Bidens investigated so I won’t have to run against Sleepy Joe in 2020.”

    Liked by 1 person

    1. I can’t edit my comment, so here is the rest of before I accidentally hit “post comment”. 😖

      “ After all, there is no quotation by Trump, no secret conversation subsequently revealed, in which Trump admits, “I want the Bidens investigated so I won’t have to run against Sleepy Joe in 2020.”

      First, both Mulvaney, Pompeo and Bolton are the ones most likely to have had direct conversations with the president regarding this issue. He won’t let them testify under oath, closed door or not.

      Second, we or even those congressmen with security clearances have not seen the actual transcript without the ellipses and withheld sentences. It’s in a lockbox.

      Finally, the conclusions are not based on Trump’s character. They are based on the information by witnesses who were told what to do by Trump’s lawyer and appointees. So either they are all rogues or the truth came out. Which is why the closed door depositions were taken first to prevent collusion among the witnesses.

      This is why Trump’s defenders in Congress have gone from “he didn’t say anything wrong” to “he did , but who cares?”.

      Except for Graham, whose defense was that the regime was too incompetent to have done the quid pro quo. That is like the legal insanity defense. But even that is dependent upon the defendant not knowing right from wrong. That might fit Trump, but certainly not Pompeo as a West Point graduate.

      IMHO

      Liked by 3 people

      1. Taking your points in order:

        • First, no testimony.
        • Second, no evidence.

        • Third, hearsay, interpretation and presumption.

        Three examples of ignorance. Hence the fool’s errand of pretending to have knowledge.

        Like

          1. “But why won’t those men testify?”

            The most important question asked thus far. To put an end to the speculation. let’s have those in the know tell us exactly what the reasoning was. But I can surmise that someone will say that even if they did, they don’t know the mind of the president. So it is ALL speculation.

            Like

Leave a Reply

Fill in your details below or click an icon to log in:

WordPress.com Logo

You are commenting using your WordPress.com account. Log Out /  Change )

Google photo

You are commenting using your Google account. Log Out /  Change )

Twitter picture

You are commenting using your Twitter account. Log Out /  Change )

Facebook photo

You are commenting using your Facebook account. Log Out /  Change )

Connecting to %s